Can't close the Lila Rd. That's how the private landowners at Nehasane Lake get there, AFAIK.

You can't put a couple of boulders in the road, but you can simply put a lock on the gate that only the Nehasane people and the DEC has keys to. My understanding is that the DEC keeps that gate locked during the winter and mud season, although they and the landowners can use the road if they want.

I was just pointing out the Lila road as a much more egregious example of "rule bending" that results in Wilderness (thats with a capital W to indicate that I'm referring to the SLMP classification) being significantly compromised. My personal preferences aside, I'm not going to argue that that exception should be ended!

I was just pointing out the Lila road as a much more egregious example of "rule bending" that results in Wilderness (thats with a capital W to indicate that I'm referring to the SLMP classification) being significantly compromised. My personal preferences aside, I'm not going to argue that that exception should be ended!

The Lila access road is entirely on private land until about 100 yards before the parking area. There is no rule-bending involved here, unless you're complaining about that 100 yards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSettahr

I wonder- does the ADK ever poll it's member base before choosing a stance on issues like this? (Serious question) Sometimes I get the sense that opinions expressed by the ADK might not accurately reflect the views of the members of the organization as a whole.

My understanding is that ADK is run as something like a dictatorship, at least as far as choosing their positions. The dictator can be swayed, but if he doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. Like a "real" dictatorship, that has its pluses and minuses.

So, I'm gathering that mountain biking would still be allowed on the Otter Brook truck trail, but will no longer be allowed on Indian Lake Road?

Based on the mountain bike trail map linked from DEC's site here (direct link to map here), Indian Lake Road would remain the wilderness boundary, and would be open to mountain biking. It looks like it's a proposed mountain bike route actually.

Biking, hiking, or otherwise... I can't wait to return to that area at the end of Indian Lake Road and beyond.... absolutely amazing country back in there!

agreed.

__________________
Backpacking: An extended form of hiking in which people carry double the amount of gear they need for half the distance they planned to go in twice the time it should take. ~Author Unknown

One of the most complicated management planning processes in the history of the Adirondack Park Agency took a last minute turn Thursday, as commissioners opted to split up a 14,700 acre region in an attempt to avoid setting a precedent.

For over five years, agency and state Department of Environmental Conservation staff have struggled with the best approach at managing the extremely popular Moose River Plains Wild Forest.

Of particular interest are two aspects of the most recent proposed management plan that would see over 84,000 acres remain wild forest, while just under 15,000 acres would become wilderness.

The DEC plan would have seen the southernmost 14,700 acres transferred into the West Canada Wilderness.

But that wilderness would have been bisected by the old Otter Brook Truck Road, which would remain open to mountain bikers and other non-motorized forms of recreation. The truck road would have constituted a wild forest corridor running through a wilderness area.

And setting such a precedent didn’t make State Lands Chair Dick Booth very comfortable.

“I think it’s a great idea; using what was a road for a bike corridor,” he said. “But it raises some hard question about future decisions regarding wilderness decisions. What it amounts to is a wild forest corridor through the West Canada Wilderness. That will be the result.”

Booth proposed a change to the plan that he said would change the legal aspect of the plan but not its actual implementation. His plan would see two separate wilderness areas created.

“A wild forest corridor between two wilderness areas is conceptually a different thing than a wild forest corridor running through a wilderness area,” he said. “But on the ground they will be the same thing.”

The amended Moose River Plain proposal unanimously passed state lands.

But the increased complexities of Booth’s proposed changes didn’t set well with everyone – especially Dan Plumley of the green group Forever Wild.

Plumley argues that the increased management requirements because of the change aren’t realistic.

“On the day when pink slips are being distributed to all DEC regions throughout the state, when we have not even one full ranger watching the Moose River Plains Wild Forest, we now have one unit being divided into four state land units,” he said.

As proposed, Moose River Plains would also feature an intensive use area corridor along the Limkiln-Cedar River Road running through much of the wild forest.

The road is a favorite annual destination for thousands of roadside campers. The plan would also allow continued float plane access to three of the ponds in the massive state holding.

And Plumley argues the state is paying too much attention to the user groups and not enough to the environment.

“No one is speaking about the need to protect the natural resources. There has been no discussion about invasive species or wilderness issues,” he said.

But not all environmental groups are as unhappy with the Moose River Plains proposal. The Adirondack Council, for example, has expressed some concerns with the plan, but said it wasn’t going to fight it.

Local governments are largely pleased with the new plan for Moose River Plains – especially considering the much more restrictive plan first proposed in 2005.

John Frye is supervisor of Inlet.

“I think it is a step towards compromise. Obviously, it’s not what everybody wants, but that’s not a possibility,” he said. “As far as the town of Inlet, local government or the user groups, it’s an appeasement step.”

The state received some 750 comment letters covering all aspects of the proposal.

As part of the creation of the management plan state regulators reached out to local governments, green groups and representatives from numerous outdoor recreational communities, like mountain bikers.

And although saying it isn’t perfect, Indian Lake Supervisor Barry Hutchins believes his concerns were listened to and considered.

“I believe I was actually listened to on this one,” he said. “It’s a nice change.”

So someone told you...I've been an ADK committee chair for over 20 years thru a variety of Exec Directors. The organization is run by an Excecutive Committe of widely varying opinions and points of view and much of the club's work largely staffed by volunteers. Your second hand information is a description of a Club I don't recognize.

where dose the money come from for the trail maintinance and the changes being made in these areas . is this supported by the new york sports man fund and revenue generated by sporting licences fee's . got to ask because everything seems to be about funding these days

where dose the money come from for the trail maintinance and the changes being made in these areas . is this supported by the new york sports man fund and revenue generated by sporting licences fee's . got to ask because everything seems to be about funding these days

the sportsman are taking a big hit paying twice for sure . Add up the $100 license fees for a full license and the season select licenses wow ! we have been complaining about licenses fees for a long time but they just go up and up. some day the state will charge a fee for all state trail access a small fee at first to help offset repair and staffing and S A R costs for all hikers then slowly it will go up soon it will double in price yearly and that seems to be how the state will do it a little at a time. Its all weights and measurers state tips the scale heavy one way and we all have to level it from the pocket.

But I must ask Are the sportsmen paying twice? Once in taxes and then sporting licenses.

Hmm, curious. By that reasoning, are people who have no children in school but are paying taxes for that being taxed unjustly?

And the people who are not paying the sportsman fees are not hunting or fishing. So does all the money for wildlife management and stream restocking come solely from the sportsman fees or are some of my tax dollars being used to pay for your enjoyment?

It's a two edged sword.

Hawk

__________________"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

Hmm, curious. By that reasoning, are people who have no children in school but are paying taxes for that being taxed unjustly?

And the people who are not paying the sportsman fees are not hunting or fishing. So does all the money for wildlife management and stream restocking come solely from the sportsman fees or are some of my tax dollars being used to pay for your enjoyment?

It's a two edged sword.

Hawk

Hawk once again you miss the point or misrepresent what was meant.

Originally Posted by dundee
We all contribute. The money comes from tax dollars (residents and then visitors paying taxes on gas, lodging, etc), sportsman fees and volunteers doing Lean-to & trail adoption.

My question is do we as sportsmen pay for our license fee as well as taxes? Are hikers REQUIRED to pay a fee for trails as well as pay taxes Although many do contribute in other ways. Do canoest pay a fee for the use of our launches or parking other then taxes?

Originally Posted by dundee
We all contribute. The money comes from tax dollars (residents and then visitors paying taxes on gas, lodging, etc), sportsman fees and volunteers doing Lean-to & trail adoption.

My question is do we as sportsmen pay for our license fee as well as taxes? Are hikers REQUIRED to pay a fee for trails as well as pay taxes Although many do contribute in other ways. Do canoest pay a fee for the use of our launches or parking other then taxes?

I think the question you should be is some of their money supporting my hiking endevors.

No misrepresentation at all. henters and fishermen do not have to pay any fees to hike, do they? Hikers who do hunt or fish do not have to pay the sportsman fees.

Where is the misrepresentation? I agree there is some, but it's not from me. No one forces you to hunt or fish, if you do, you have to pay a fee. You have to hike in most cases to hunt or fish but you don't have to pay any extra for hiking.

And I asked if all the money that goes for the game management and the stocking of streams comes from sportsman fees or if other funds (tax dollars) are used for that. What about people who don't hike, paddle, ski, climb, hunt or fish? Their tax dollars are paying for the maintenance, etc.

Many of the trails todays are maintained by volunteers, Rangers are responsible for checking and policing hunting and fishing and that actually requires a little more effort then just patroling the trails for hikers.

I am all in favor of licenses for hikers. I think we should all be responsible for supporting our recreational endeavors.

Hawk

__________________"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

DISCLAIMER:
Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk.
Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by
the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions
found in the FULL
DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use
of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of
this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.